Cindy Kenis1, Lore Decoster, Katrien Van Puyvelde, Jacques De Grève, Godelieve Conings, Koen Milisen, Johan Flamaing, Jean-Pierre Lobelle, Hans Wildiers. 1. Cindy Kenis, Koen Milisen, Johan Flamaing, and Hans Wildiers, University Hospitals Leuven; Koen Milisen, Johan Flamaing, and Hans Wildiers, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; Lore Decoster, Katrien Van Puyvelde, Jacques De Grève, and Godelieve Conings, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels; and Jean-Pierre Lobelle, Consultant in Statistics, Beernem, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic characteristics of two geriatric screening tools (G8 and Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool [fTRST]) to identify patients with a geriatric risk profile and to evaluate their prognostic value for functional decline and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥ 70 years old with a malignant tumor were included if a new cancer event occurred requiring treatment decision. Geriatric screening with G8 and fTRST (cutoff ≥ 1 [fTRST (1)] and ≥ 2 [fTRST (2)] evaluated) was performed in all patients, as well as a geriatric assessment (GA) evaluating social situation, functionality (activities of daily living [ADL] + instrumental activities of daily living [IADL]), cognition, depression, and nutrition. Functionality was re-evaluated 2 to 3 months after cancer treatment decision, and death rate was followed. Functional decline and OS were evaluated in relation to normal versus abnormal score on both screening tools. RESULTS: Nine hundred thirty-seven patients were included (October 2009 to July 2011). G8 and fTRST (1) showed high sensitivity (86.5% to 91.3%) and moderate negative predictive value (61.3% to 63.4%) to detect patients with a geriatric risk profile. G8 and fTRST (1) were strongly prognostic for functional decline on ADL and IADL, and G8, fTRST (1), and fTRST (2) were prognostic for OS (all P < .001). G8 had the strongest prognostic value for OS (hazard ratio for G8 normal v abnormal, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.52). CONCLUSION: Both geriatric screening tools, G8 and fTRST, are simple and useful instruments in older patients with cancer for identifying patients with a geriatric risk profile and have a strong prognostic value for functional decline and OS.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic characteristics of two geriatric screening tools (G8 and Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool [fTRST]) to identify patients with a geriatric risk profile and to evaluate their prognostic value for functional decline and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥ 70 years old with a malignant tumor were included if a new cancer event occurred requiring treatment decision. Geriatric screening with G8 and fTRST (cutoff ≥ 1 [fTRST (1)] and ≥ 2 [fTRST (2)] evaluated) was performed in all patients, as well as a geriatric assessment (GA) evaluating social situation, functionality (activities of daily living [ADL] + instrumental activities of daily living [IADL]), cognition, depression, and nutrition. Functionality was re-evaluated 2 to 3 months after cancer treatment decision, and death rate was followed. Functional decline and OS were evaluated in relation to normal versus abnormal score on both screening tools. RESULTS: Nine hundred thirty-seven patients were included (October 2009 to July 2011). G8 and fTRST (1) showed high sensitivity (86.5% to 91.3%) and moderate negative predictive value (61.3% to 63.4%) to detect patients with a geriatric risk profile. G8 and fTRST (1) were strongly prognostic for functional decline on ADL and IADL, and G8, fTRST (1), and fTRST (2) were prognostic for OS (all P < .001). G8 had the strongest prognostic value for OS (hazard ratio for G8 normal v abnormal, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.52). CONCLUSION: Both geriatric screening tools, G8 and fTRST, are simple and useful instruments in older patients with cancer for identifying patients with a geriatric risk profile and have a strong prognostic value for functional decline and OS.
Authors: L Decoster; C Kenis; D Schallier; J Vansteenkiste; K Nackaerts; L Vanacker; N Vandewalle; J Flamaing; J P Lobelle; K Milisen; J De Grève; H Wildiers Journal: Lung Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Richard Baird; Ian Banks; David Cameron; John Chester; Helena Earl; Mark Flannagan; Adam Januszewski; Richard Kennedy; Sarah Payne; Emlyn Samuel; Hannah Taylor; Roshan Agarwal; Samreen Ahmed; Caroline Archer; Ruth Board; Judith Carser; Ellen Copson; David Cunningham; Rob Coleman; Adam Dangoor; Graham Dark; Diana Eccles; Chris Gallagher; Adam Glaser; Richard Griffiths; Geoff Hall; Marcia Hall; Danielle Harari; Michael Hawkins; Mark Hill; Peter Johnson; Alison Jones; Tania Kalsi; Eleni Karapanagiotou; Zoe Kemp; Janine Mansi; Ernie Marshall; Alex Mitchell; Maung Moe; Caroline Michie; Richard Neal; Tom Newsom-Davis; Alison Norton; Richard Osborne; Gargi Patel; John Radford; Alistair Ring; Emily Shaw; Rod Skinner; Dan Stark; Sam Turnbull; Galina Velikova; Jeff White; Alison Young; Johnathan Joffe; Peter Selby Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2016-01-05